House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Developments in the European Union Sixth Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 19 July 2006 HC 768 Published on 26 July 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge) The following member was also a member of the committee during the parliament. Rt Hon Mr Andrew Mackay (Conservative, Bracknell) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Steve Priestley (Clerk), Sarah Ioannou (Second Clerk), Ann Snow (Committee Specialist), Kit Dawnay, (Committee Specialist), Kevin Candy (Committee Assistant), Catherine Jackson (Secretary) and Chintan Makwana (Senior Office Clerk). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6394; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] Developments in the European Union 1 Contents Report Page Conclusions and recommendations 2 1 Introduction 5 2 The UK’s relations with Europe 7 The United Kingdom Presidency, July–December 2005 7 Future financing 7 Economic reform 9 External relations 10 Enlargement 12 Conclusion 13 Post-Presidency developments 15 Transparency and openness 15 National veto 17 Energy policy 18 Ministerial appointments 19 3 The Constitutional Treaty 20 Is the Treaty dead, or just resting? 20 ‘Cherry picking’ 21 The way ahead 23 4 Enlargement 25 Bulgaria and Romania: the next stage 25 Croatia 28 Is Europe going cold on Turkey? 29 Is Turkey going cold on Europe? 30 Turkey and Cyprus 31 Conclusion 32 The EU’s ‘absorption capacity’ 33 5 Foreign, Security and Defence Policy 35 Machinery and architecture 35 Is there a distinctive role for the EU in foreign policy? 37 Keeping the neighbourhood tidy 37 An EU working in Britain’s interests 38 Formal minutes 39 List of witnesses 41 List of written evidence 42 2 Developments in the European Union Conclusions and recommendations The UK’s relations with Europe 1. We conclude that the British Presidency took place at a time when Europe was facing a deep and largely unforeseen crisis of confidence. We further conclude that notwithstanding this difficult context, the Presidency was on the whole well-run and achieved some important successes, along with a number of disappointing outcomes. It failed to generate the fresh thinking on democracy and reengagement with the public which the Prime Minister called for in his opening speech to the European Parliament. We recommend that the Government build on the successes and, in particular, that it work to consolidate and where necessary improve its good working relations with other member states, especially with those that broadly share the United Kingdom’s perspective on the EU. (Paragraph 33) 2. We conclude that the Government was wrong to retract its previous support for all stages of the Council’s deliberations on legislative acts to be open to the public as a general rule. We recommend that the Government support efforts by the Finnish Presidency to promote greater transparency in the Council and more generally in the proceedings of the European Union. (Paragraph 40) 3. We welcome the decision of the Council of Ministers to seek further improvements in decision-making and action in justice and home affairs on the basis of existing treaties. However, we oppose attempts to use the bridging clauses in the current treaties to introduce core objectives of the constitutional Treaty in the field of justice and home affairs. We recommend that the Government seek the views of Parliament before agreeing to any further extension of qualified majority voting. (Paragraph 46) The Constitutional Treaty 4. We conclude that although the Treaty is not dead, it is comatose and on life support. At some point, Europe’s leaders are going to have to decide whether to switch it off. We conclude that the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is unlikely ever to come into force, although attempts may be made to enact some of its provisions by other means. We recommend that the Government encourage its European counterparts to face up to this reality and explicitly to abandon the Treaty as a package, in the interest of making progress on some of the real and important issues which are at present caught up in the paralysis created by its rejection. (Paragraph 64) Enlargement 5. We conclude that there are strong political reasons for the Government to maintain its support for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in accordance with the agreed timetable. We recommend, however, that the Government be prepared to agree to the imposition of post-accession safeguards on either country, if the Commission’s reports show that these would be justified. (Paragraph 74) Developments in the European Union 3 6. We conclude that Croatia’s proposed accession to the EU deserves the full support of the United Kingdom, assuming that it meets all the necessary criteria. We further conclude, and hope, that a successful accession process by Croatia could play an important role in stimulating other states in the Western Balkans to make the necessary adjustments that will enable them to qualify for full membership of the EU in due course. (Paragraph 77) 7. We conclude that the accession to the European Union of a Turkey which fully meets all the entry criteria remains in the interests of both the EU and Turkey. We recommend that the Government continue to offer strong support to Turkey in its accession process. (Paragraph 80) 8. We conclude that it is the interests of Turkey, the Turkish people and Turkish Cypriots alike that Turkey should move swiftly to accept in full its obligations under the Ankara Agreement. We further conclude that a far more constructive approach by the government of the Republic of Cyprus is necessary to assist this process. (Paragraph 87) 9. We agree with the Foreign Secretary that what is key to the enlargement debate is the rigorous application of the criteria for membership. We conclude that it is this, rather than any abstruse debate about ‘absorption capacity’, which must determine the future shape and scope of the EU. But we also conclude that popular opinion will be an important factor in deciding future enlargements and that this reinforces the need for a Union which engages the public. (Paragraph 93) Foreign, Security and Defence Policy 10. We conclude that, whatever the merits of the proposal to establish a Foreign Minister and an external action service for the EU, it is important that the European Commission should not develop a diplomatic service or ‘embassies’ by stealth. We recommend that the Government take steps to prevent the official use of the term ‘ambassador’ to refer to the Commission’s representatives and that it ensure that, at a time when the funding of British diplomatic, consular and trade posts around the world is under great pressure, expenditure by the Commission on its overseas delegations and properties is subject to rigorous scrutiny. (Paragraph 101) 11. We conclude that foreign policy is and should remain primarily a matter for each nation state to decide for itself. We further conclude, however, that there can be real value in co-ordinating foreign policies at EU level and in undertaking joint missions on matters where the EU25 can agree and where they have a shared interest. (Paragraph 106) 4 Developments in the European Union Developments in the European Union 5 1 Introduction 1. The Foreign Affairs Committee has maintained a continuing Inquiry into Developments in the European Union since July 2001, when it had become clear that the next wave of enlargement was going to put strain on the EU’s procedures and institutions.1 At the same time, a Convention on the Future of Europe was being formed “to consider the key issues arising for the Union's future development and try to identify the various possible responses.”2 Two of the present membership of the Committee, Gisela Stuart and David Heathcoat-Amory, were the United Kingdom Parliament’s representatives on the Convention; Ms Stuart also served on its Praesidium. 2. The Convention completed its work in July 2003, with the publication of a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.3 Three years later, the Treaty having been rejected in referendums by the electorates of France and the Netherlands in mid-2005, the European Union is in a ‘period of reflection’.